First Amendment and "Free Speech"

By Jeff Jackson

February 15, 2005

Self righteous liberals that fancy themselves now as civil libertarians are decrying any insinuation that Ward Churchill would lose his job at the University of Colorado over calling the victims of 9/11 “little Eichmans” and discussing how much the United States deserved what it got.  It is always humorous to watch the left wing try to wrap themselves and their opinions in a the Constitution and the first amendment.  It is even more humorous considering few of them have even read it and fewer still have ever understood.

Let us review:
Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Breaking the amendment apart it states the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are six prohibitions listed in the amendment.  Even looking at James Madison’s original intent of the “freedom of speech” provision provides no additional meaning.  “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments”.

Note that the 14th Amendment extends the same prohibitions listed here and assigned to Congress to the states as well.

Reference:
Amendment XIV, Section I: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

Ward Churchill is the new poster child for the irreligious left and the presumed “fascism” they claim George Bush and the vast right wing conspiracy are heaping upon America.  Let’s get things crystal clear however, no one is infringing upon Ward “I lied about being an American Indian so I could get this job” Churchill’s “free speech” rights.

“Free Speech” means that the government cannot prevent you from saying what you want.  It means that the government cannot put you in jail or put a bullet in your brain to silence you.  “Free speech” is simply the “right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments”.  Note that however if such speech gives "aid and comfort" to the enemy you can be charged with treason.

The university proposing to fire Mr. Churchill does not abridge his “free speech”.  The governor of Colorado calling for Mr. Churchill to be released from his position likewise does not abridge his “free speech”.  It merely denies him a certain venue which he can use to spew his vile and distaste for a country that he once said he would like to see removed from the face of the planet.

This denial of a certain venue however is not a violation of his “free speech” rights.  Mr. Churchill is allowed to get his soap box out and stand on a corner and talk all he wants.  Mr. Churchill is allowed to solicit offers from Universities and other institutions to invite him to speak and even teach there.  Mr. Churchill is allowed to start his own newspaper, run his own internet website to get his point across if he so likes.

But liberals who have magically become civil libertarians over the past couple weeks think that Mr. Chruchill being fired and denied the ability to teach this tripe his considers thought to students somehow violates his “free speech”.  If this were true then any University that would not allow me to teach a class would be violating my “free speech” rights by the same weak argument.  Hmmm, perhaps I should apply for a position at the local liberal infested univeristy and then turn around and sue them when they don't hire me.  Maybe that will teach them a lesson.

“Free speech” is not about being able to say what you want, when you want, in whatever forum you want.  It is merely about saying what you want.  No one, not even the federal government, is required to give you a specific forum to espouse your viewpoints.

What “free speech” really means that that you are allowed to setup your little soapbox on the street corner and shout your viewpoints without fear that the federal or state or local government is going to lock you up.  Also note that Madison correctly clarifies what free speech applies to.  He specifically in his proposal said that it applies to one’s “sentiments”.  Sentiments means “opinions”, “feelings”, “thoughts”, “responses” and “reactions”.  Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire merely to cause a panic and disruption is not any of those things and not protected under the first amendment.

The government is not putting Ward Churchill in prison for his speech.  He is merely being denied a certain venue.  Get on your soapbox and get popularity for your ideas legitimately instead of forcing people that don’t want to pay you for your “sentiments” to be forced, against their will and their right to liberty to do so.  Forcing people against their will to support some loony left wing professor with tax payer dollars at a tax payer funded institution is what would really be "fascist".  But everything to the left is the oposite of what it really is.  In their reality black is white and white is black and anyone not giving them what they want is a "fascist."  When in reality they are the true fascists goosestepping around telling everyone that they will listen to what they have to say and force you to hear it.